News coverage is now available for the resolution of complaints about Sister Jane Dominic Laurel’s controversial presentation at a Catholic high school in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Nashville Dominican sister spoke at a school assembly about Church teaching on marriage, divorce, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and gαy marriage, and on the impact the disregard of Catholic teaching and the natural has on children growing up in broken our unnatural home environments.

Complaints were numerous enough that a special meeting was called to discuss the matter, and diocesan officials decided to apologize for two things: First, that the school had not notified parents of the assembly and its sensitive contents; and second, that Sister Jane Dominic would have been better advised to leave out the data she used on the last portion of her talk, data which shows the deleterious effects on children of aberrant marital arrangements, because the value of that data is debated.

This resolution meets the minimum standard I proposed in my original discussion of this incident, “that any appropriate apology or correction will be accompanied by a clear reaffirmation of the reality of Divine Revelation and the certainty of Catholic teaching on these important subjects.” The apologies made do affirm Church teaching, in that it is specifically stated that the presentation did conform to Catholic doctrine. Problems are acknowledged only in the handling of certain data.

I have no objection to the statement that parents should have been forewarned (even though this may also have been met with a negative reaction). But the second apology is weak for two reasons. The first reason is the one I gave in my original discussion:

t is imperative that nothing be allowed to detract from what ought to become an even more spectacular teaching moment. Therefore, it would be even better to avoid distracting side issues altogether. This means extending the benefit of any doubt to Sr. Jane Dominic, such that the correctness of her presentation of the Church’s infallible teaching is reaffirmed and defended without a single caveat.

The second reason is that the data on the impact of aberrant marital situations on children is overwhelming in showing that these children are far more likely to suffer emotional instability, uncontrolled anger, severe insecurity, and affective disorders throughout their lives. This or that piece of data may be debated, but the only people who contest the massive weight of the data as a whole are those who are championing an artificial vision of reality opposed to the natural law. Lending credibility to this sort of “debate”, which is absolutely unavoidable no matter what sociological studies prove, is one of those distractions which should not have been admitted. I fear that the second apology as phrased by the diocese’s vicar for education gives away too much in an effort to placate those who loudly objected to the talk, though the chaplain who arranged the assembly, Fr. Matthew Kauth, issued a better and more explanatory statement.

As far as I have been able to determine from the limited correspondence I received from some of those who objected to Sr. Jane Dominic’s presentation, the tactic chosen for the formal complaint was to insist that nobody was questioning Church teaching. Rather, the formal complaint was against the presentation of the alleged familial consequences of ignoring Church teaching. Such practical data was referred to in a variety of ways, such as “scare tactics” and “hateful”. Thus, for example, the presentation was deemed hurtful to single parents struggling to raise children under difficult circuмstances; and also hurtful in that it indicated that gαys could not, in actual practice, be fit parents. In this sense, the objection gave the Catholic officials a way out, and they took it.

A Much Deeper Problem

But it is just here that we recognize a more subtle but also much deeper problem. If you read the news report, you will see that tempers were very high over this problem of “data”, and that those who thought the whole presentation was just fine were shouted down. What this means is that there were many people professing to accept Church teaching (or at least choosing not to object to its presentation in a Catholic school) who nonetheless became extremely upset because the actual demonstrable practical consequences of living in opposition to Church teaching were enumerated.

We have slipped here into a pattern all too common in Catholic life today: The idea that the Church may teach something (yeah, yeah) but it really doesn’t matter. People can do what they deem best, and their way for them will be as good as anything. This attitude is false, and Sister Jane Dominic committed the cardinal sin of demonstrating its falsity. In point of fact, “their way for them” will not be as good as anything. It will not only be spiritually deadening, but also have disastrous concrete, practical consequences, including negative impacts on others which are statistically measurable.

The acceptance of Church teaching must go beyond theoretical assent to a lived commitment, and that lived commitment includes an awareness of the many deeply unfortunate consequences of living in denial of the realities which Church teachings (and the natural law) describe.

It is for this reason that parents who are raising children in the aftermath of divorce, spousal death, or abandonment face such a difficult challenge. Insofar as they bear responsibility for the broken family, this is seriously sinful. Insofar as they do not, it is a heavy cross. They need to know that it will take a life of prayer, heroic virtue and grace to prevent the consequences from injuring their children. They also need to know that with God all things are possible. But the last thing they need is to believe it is no big deal.

The same realities apply to children raised by gαy “parents”. It is true that some gαy “parents” can be better at some aspects of parenting—for example, ensuring physical safety or helping with math homework—than parents in families founded on true marriage. It is also true that not all gαy “parents” will deliberately abuse their children, whereas some real parents will in fact do so. But all of this is beside the point. It is actually intrinsically abusive to place a child in a home to be raised by gαy “parents”, or to permit gαy “parents” to manufacture children for themselves under any circuмstances. In addition to being a deliberate violation of a child’s natural right to be raised by a mother and a father, at the very least gαy “parenting” is deeply abusive in terms of the normal affective development of the child.

We cannot “play house” without dire consequences. There is a natural order to things which, when we fail to perceive it in nature, is made clear to us through Revelation and Catholic doctrine. The consequences of evading and denying that order are both naturally and supernaturally grave. Refusing to admit the consequences is a cultural accommodation and a self-deception that actually rises to the level of practical dissent. An authentic recognition and response to reality is an important part of what it means to accept the teachings of the Church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1178

What did the nun say?

What did the nun say?

The sister spoke of the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage and cited statistics to back up her claim that the magisterial teaching Catholic Church was right in teaching what she teaches.

CHARLOTTE, NC, April 7, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The bishop of Charlotte is backing a Dominican nun who has been at the center of a fiery controversy since last month when she gave a speech promoting Catholic teaching on sɛҳuąƖity to students at Charlotte Catholic High School.

After a public meeting with diocesan and school officials turned ugly, with parents and students alike shouting at administrators over what they perceived as “hateful” remarks criticizing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior, divorce and extra-marital sex, a spokesman for the diocese told LifeSiteNews that the nun in question, Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel, did nothing wrong and will be welcome to speak on the issue again if she chooses.

 
Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel

“Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” Diocese of Charlotte Communications Director David Hains told LifeSiteNews in an email. “Sister would be welcomed to speak in the diocese in the future.”

LINK

It seems the issue is that parents who are living in sin and damned to hell are intimidated by the rightful rejection the church is aiming at them and trying to place in the hearts of their children.:

Another said, “You have divided parents, you have divided students, and we’ve lost respect for you."

“You don’t know best for our children,” said another. “What are you planning on doing for the healing? We want our children to remain Catholic, but we are being pushed away by the climate of what is going on here.”

No she didn't.  She spoke like a Catholic, Dominican religious should speak, proclaiming the Church's teaching clearly and unambiguously.    She felt no need to carry on like a school yard bully.  

Charlotte’s Bishop Peter Jugis has finally issued a statement regarding the unseemly controversy at Charlotte Catholic High School. In that statement the bishop clearly affirms the teachings of the Catholic Church. But he does not affirm Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, whose presentation of those teachings provoked so much bitter criticism.

”Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues,” the bishop says. He does not indicate what viewpoint, if any, he holds on that presentation. He does not even mention, anywhere in his statement, the subject matter of her presentation. If your only source of information about this affair is the bishop’s statement, you have no idea what the ruckus is about.

Bishop Jugis does make two points clearly. First he says that some parents at Charlotte Catholic were concerned about the lack of prior notice about Sister Jane Dominic’s presentation, and he notes that the school apologized for this failure. Second he observes that he has heard “disturbing reports of a lack of charity” at a subsequent meeting at the school. You could probably safely infer that this rebuke was aimed at angry students and parents who criticized Sister Jane Dominic and the school officials who had arranged her talk.

However, on the actual substance of the controversy, the bishop’s statement is neutral. The relevant paragraph reads:

The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.
It would be an understatement to say that those three sentences raise more questions than they answer, because the truth is that the statement answers no questions at all. But here are some of the questions that one might raise:

•What is the Church’s moral teaching regarding the subject at hand?
•For that matter, what is the subject at hand?
•Why not use the opportunity to reiterate or at least summarize Church teaching, rather than refer interested parties to the Catechism? And how could one consult the Catechism without knowing what subject is in question?
•Did Sister Jane Dominic present Church teachings accurately? If not, where did she go wrong?
•If she did present the Church’s moral teachings accurately, and if those moral teachings were not contested during the meeting with parents, what was the basis for this entire dispute?
Angry students and parents at Charlotte Catholic have insisted that they were not unhappy with the presentation of orthodox Catholic views on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but with the tone of Sister Jane Dominic’s presentation and/or with her introduction of certain sociological data. But there is good reason to believe that some actually did have a problem with Church teachings, and objected to Sister Jane Dominic’s uncompromising defense of those teachings. By saying that the Church’s moral teachings were not in question, Bishop Jugis appears to side with those who protested the presentation—to accept their argument that they could reject her approach without calling into question the Church’s moral authority.

No doubt Bishop Jugis chose his words carefully, with an eye to restoring calm and tranquility. But in pursuit of serenity, he may have missed an opportunity for instruction. The dispute in Charlotte seemed to be a clear indication that parents and students disagreed about the content of Church teaching on the question of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. That dispute remains unresolved.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1030

Bishop Peter J. Jurgis has said he is “shocked” by reports of “a lack of charity and respect” at a North Carolina high school meeting about a religious sister whose discussion of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity came under attack.

“There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect,” the Bishop of Charlotte said April 9. “If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.”

The April 2 Charlotte Catholic High School meeting with students’ parents concerned the March 21 presentation of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P., an assistant professor of theology at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tenn.

She addressed an all-school assembly in a one-hour presentation, “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift,” that discussed Catholic teaching about sɛҳuąƖ difference in light of Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

Her presentation was not recorded and accounts of its content rest on descriptions from school administrators and students.

High school officials told media outlets that a significant portion of her talk discussed ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and attributed a correlation between the decline of fatherhood in the U.S. and a rise in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

A petition reportedly created by a student at the high school said that students were “confused why time was spent condemning the practice of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.” The petition called the presentation “offensive.”

According to student reports, she cited studies and statistics indicating that people are not born with same-sex attraction and that children raised by a single parent have a greater chance of becoming ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. The students said that her presentation suggested a correlation between masturbation and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the Charlotte Observer says.

The controversy over her presentation became the subject of national press coverage.

The school’s meeting about the presentation drew 900 parents. Among those who spoke, some parents supported the school and the presentation, but most were critical, the Catholic News Herald reports.

Bishop Jurgis said he was “shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media.”

He noted that there were “different viewpoints” about Sister Laurel’s presentation and that the school apologized for not notifying parents in advance about the subject of the assembly.

He said Catholic moral teaching was “not raised as a matter of contention” at the meeting.

“All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all,” the bishop said.

In an April 2 statement, Aquinas College said Sister Laurel’s talk “attempted to reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church” on a “challenging topic.” The college said her talks have been “favorably received” at other venues.

The college said the talk was intended to show that human sɛҳuąƖity is a “great gift” from God, though contemporary culture sees this “differently.” The college said Sister Laurel had intended to bring a message that brings “life, peace, and a deep sense of purpose.”

“It appears that this message was not universally accepted,” the college continued, expressing hope that no one felt unloved by God. It called the subsequent controversy “unfortunate.”

Sr. Laurel holds a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.

Aquinas College president Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith commented on the presentation April 4, noting that of those commenting on the matter, few people were present to hear the presentation. She said that Sister Laurel “spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals,” but said “her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.”

“The unfortunate events at Charlotte Catholic High School are not representative of the quality of Sister’s academic contributions or the positive influence that she has had on her students,” Sister Mary Sarah said. “The students at Charlotte Catholic were unprepared, as were their parents, for the topic that Sister was asked to deliver.”

“There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments,” she said. “The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create.”

According to Sister Mary Sarah, Sister Laurel has cancelled her speaking engagements. At Sister Laurel’s own request, she is preparing to begin a sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College.

Bishop Jurgis urged parents, students, staff and faculty to “move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-laments-lack-of-charity-in-high-school-controversy/

When the archbishop says that when we disagree we must disagree with love, does he mean to imply that public dissent against what the Catholic Church teaches is to be regarded as equal to the Catholic Churche's magisterial teaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality?